Hacker News Reader

Comment by 91bananas | Hacker News Reader

Crazy budget, just at $20 dollars an hour that is $~260k. Hope it paid off!

Even at that price, it'd be a deal; the real car costs $2,998,000. [1] And I expect the Lego version would be be safer, too; any car with a top speed of 261 mph (420 kph) seems inordinately likely to end up wrapped around a freeway lamppost.

[1] https://www.motortrend.com/news/2018-bugatti-chiron-review/

I think the top speed of a car is a very weak factor in its likelyhood of being wrapped around a lamppost, as I suspect most people in the US have never driven their car at its top speed.

As a note, I have driven a car at its top speed once. I had a mid 90s Geo Metro with the I3 engine in a 70MPH zone and it had a top speed of about 72 on level ground.

as I suspect most people in the US have never driven their car at its top speed.

I've probably run every vehicle I've ever owned until it topped out (or as close as practical). And I've owned some fast ones. I still think it's a mostly useless metric. Even in Nevada with 20 miles of visibility and empty road in front of you, there's a limit to what you can do on a public road without the odds rapidly stacking against you with each added mph. And the vast majority of tracks don't have a straight long enough to get to 260mph. So lot of damned good that 2.9MM car does you on I-405 at 5:00...or on a track day.

0-60, OTOH...

Maybe. My guess is that a car whose speedometer goes up to 300 MPH (and has all sorts of features to make high-speed driving great) is in the category of "attractive nuisance". It's like telling a kid not to stuff beans up their nose.

Looking at the most accident-prone cars, all the ones I recognize are sports cars: https://www.cars.com/articles/whats-the-most-crash-prone-car...

Not that a single anecdote refuits your point, but my favorite story about the Dodge hell back when it first came out was that the first one that was sold in Texas did end up wrapped around a pole something like 2 minutes after it was driven off the lot.

I assume that it's not only top speed, but high speed as well. Must be tough to control something at 200mph, but not as much at 70mph

Must be tough to control something at 200mph, but not as much at 70mph

Ever driven a Metro at 70mph? I'll take the Bugatti at 200mph, thanks.

Having driven a Smart car flat out at 96mph (as clocked by a police officer, thankfully got a warning and not a ticket) and having done over 200mph (not in a Bugatti, but in a comparably priced car) on a track, I agree, definitely will take the later for safety.

Even at just 200 km/h (~125 mph) you begin to perceive the road narrowing. It's weird.

> any car with a top speed of 261 mph (420 kph) seems inordinately likely to end up wrapped around a freeway lamppost.

any car with a top speed of 261 mph (420 kph) seems inordinately likely to end up in an air-conditioned garage and never driven at all.

(That's typically what happens to many of these 'hyper-cars' - they are treated as long term investments rather than vehicles, heaven forbid you affect the future resale value by actually driving it...).

Plus over 1 000 000 lego technic elements at what I figure an average of ~$0.30 = over ~$300k. So total cost of the car is likely closer to $600k.

I think your average is likely very low. Many of the parts are expensive and offset the ones under $0.30 by a large margin.

How many Bugatti's does this piece of marketing have to sell to justify the cost? I'm guessing not many.

Like the other poster says - this doesn't really sell any cars because they are spoken for as soon as the plans to build one are revealed (ie Bugatti often sells through their entire planned-to-build cars years or even decades before the car is actually built)

Often luxury car companies will refuse to build any more because each additional car built reduces the value of all existing cars.

So the answer is 0. This marketing doesn't need to sell any cars to justify the cost.

That’s a too simplistic approach. Bugatti wants to be able to sell cars at the price point in the future and any marketing and PR they do certainly has to be geared towards that, not selling additonal cars.

Also, I think this is about Lego, not Bugatti (but I’m not excluding the possibility that it’s mutually beneficial).

The real question is how many Lego versions of the car does this have to sell to pay off.

AFAIK, the Chiron production run is only about 60% sold last I heard.

It's the Divo that is sold out but that's an even more limited run.

Probably both one and infinite. Hypercars usually run on +100% margins in an attempt to cover their absurd R&D, and this is the halo model of the hypercar, which usually run at even higher margins, so a +$300k gross off each model sold will not be unusual. Even then these types of cars never make back their investment costs, as they serve more as advertisements of their parent company more so than actual products.

With regards to Bugatti:

“On [the Chiron] project, we get back in the black,” Bugatti’s Head of Production Christophe Piochon told me. The development of the Veyron’s complex systems over its lifetime, which laid the solid engineering foundation for the Chiron, resulted in $1.62 billion in investment costs. “By the end of the Chiron’s run, we’ll be profitable,” Piochon promised.

The Veyron somewhat infamously was a net loss for Volkswagen, despite its massive price. But ultimately its role was to be a halo car for the entire Volkswagen Group, and as such profit on the car itself wasn't such a concern.

I'm pretty sure every Veyron/Chiron built is already sold before construction begins. They only make a tiny number of them and collectors snap them right up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com